My dear friends, hello.

The time has now come to solve a first problem.
Others will follow if you wish.
We said that in the train problem, the train's frame of reference made the
hole in the bridge measure 18 meters. And that for the hole, it is the
train which measured 18 meters.
It is a thought experiment.
So, we will admit that if the train is longer than the hole, it will stay
on the rails, and if the hole is longer, it will fall into the abyss (356
dead).
Two contradictory possibilities.
In the bridge repository, the train is sprayed.
In the train's repository, the train crosses the bridge.
Who is right? Who's wrong?
How do you solve this incredible problem? Who will nature prove right?
To find out, you have to use a third frame of reference.
The barycentric frame of reference.
What is the barycentric frame of reference?
It is the frame of reference which is neutral between the other two.
The barycentric frame of reference between two frames of reference
separated by 0.8c is 0.5c.
Addition law of relativistic speeds.
It's simple.
We quickly understand that to know what will happen, and whether the train
will fall or not, we just need to know the length of the train and the
hole at rest.
If the hole is larger, the train will fall into it (regardless of its
speed). If the hole is smaller, it won't fall into it.
And you got it.
You understood everything!

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> So, we will admit that if the train is longer than the hole, it will
> stay on the rails, and if the hole is longer, it will fall into the
> abyss (356 dead).
> Two contradictory possibilities.
> In the bridge repository, the train is sprayed.
> In the train's repository, the train crosses the bridge.
> Who is right? Who's wrong?

nonsense. If you observe the train shorter, same instance of time, you
observe the tunnel shorter as well. You can't cheat lengths with
relativity.

Le 11/12/2021 à 16:02, Emmet Buchs a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> So, we will admit that if the train is longer than the hole, it will
>> stay on the rails, and if the hole is longer, it will fall into the
>> abyss (356 dead).
>> Two contradictory possibilities.
>> In the bridge repository, the train is sprayed.
>> In the train's repository, the train crosses the bridge.
>> Who is right? Who's wrong?
>
> nonsense. If you observe the train shorter, same instance of time, you
> observe the tunnel shorter as well. You can't cheat lengths with
> relativity.

You don't understand the theory of relativity.
The theory of relativity means that everything is relative.
In the train frame, it is the bridge that is shorter; and in that of the
bridge, it is the train.
It is of a prodigious beauty and a prodigious intelligence. This is called
the notion of covariance.
The human being is able to understand that.
Then it gets harder. Not because of the limits of his brain, but because
of the size of his navel, and that of his cock.
But now, good Doctor Hachel, he's getting boring. He talks too much. We
don't like him anymore.

R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=v-0mVQWhfGIw21RxDJmwvJHvoIs@jntp>

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 16:02, Emmet Buchs a écrit :

Question: Why did you respond to "him"?

Did you not realize that it is the troll, and that you are just losing your time with it? Its sole purpose is just to make you talk. And you fell for it. So I ask you again, why did you respond to it?

Richard Hachel wrote:

>> nonsense. If you observe the train shorter, same instance of time, you
>> observe the tunnel shorter as well. You can't cheat lengths with
>> relativity.
>
> You don't understand the theory of relativity.
> The theory of relativity means that everything is relative.
> In the train frame, it is the bridge that is shorter; and in that of the
> bridge, it is the train.

said same_instance_of_time. Moreover, the train sees the tunnel shorter
as well. Enjoy your chemtrails. Or the 4th booster, every 3 months that
goes. The worst way to subjugate the world. I can't even believe it.

extreme crank rotchm wrote:

> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
> wrote:
>> Le 11/12/2021 à 16:02, Emmet Buchs a écrit :
>
> Question: Why did you respond to "him"?

shut up, stupid troll. Hachel is a doctor, compared to you, a seemingly
braindead uneducated nym'shifting troll. Post your proper name, as we do,
you stupid "rotchm" troll. You don't even have a name, troll.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>
> My dear friends, hello.
>
> The time has now come to solve a first problem.
> Others will follow if you wish.
> We said that in the train problem, the train's frame of reference made the
> hole in the bridge measure 18 meters. And that for the hole, it is the
> train which measured 18 meters.
> It is a thought experiment.
> So, we will admit that if the train is longer than the hole, it will stay
> on the rails, and if the hole is longer, it will fall into the abyss (356
> dead).
> Two contradictory possibilities.

Actually relativity does NOT offer these two contradictory possibilities.
Relativity predicts the same outcome, regardless of the reference frame.

The fact that you do not know which outcome it is, is a good indicator of
how little you understand about relativity.

This train example, by the way, is covered in just about every single
instructional book on relativity. In each of those books, the single
outcome is described.

> In the bridge repository, the train is sprayed.
> In the train's repository, the train crosses the bridge.
> Who is right? Who's wrong?
> How do you solve this incredible problem? Who will nature prove right?
> To find out, you have to use a third frame of reference.
> The barycentric frame of reference.
> What is the barycentric frame of reference?
> It is the frame of reference which is neutral between the other two.
> The barycentric frame of reference between two frames of reference
> separated by 0.8c is 0.5c.
> Addition law of relativistic speeds.
> It's simple.
> We quickly understand that to know what will happen, and whether the train
> will fall or not, we just need to know the length of the train and the
> hole at rest.
> If the hole is larger, the train will fall into it (regardless of its
> speed). If the hole is smaller, it won't fall into it.
> And you got it.
> You understood everything!
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 20:13:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >
> > My dear friends, hello.
> >
> > The time has now come to solve a first problem.
> > Others will follow if you wish.
> > We said that in the train problem, the train's frame of reference made the
> > hole in the bridge measure 18 meters. And that for the hole, it is the
> > train which measured 18 meters.
> > It is a thought experiment.
> > So, we will admit that if the train is longer than the hole, it will stay
> > on the rails, and if the hole is longer, it will fall into the abyss (356
> > dead).
> > Two contradictory possibilities.
> Actually relativity does NOT offer these two contradictory possibilities.
> Relativity predicts the same outcome, regardless of the reference frame.
>
> The fact that you do not know which outcome it is, is a good indicator of
> how little you understand about relativity.
>
> This train example, by the way, is covered in just about every single
> instructional book on relativity. In each of those books, the single
> outcome is described.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.